Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted

How can the FL sanction lifting the embargo to get 20 players? They get rid of all the carp players and replace them (if they can convince someone that they will be paid) with better players. Hardly playing fair. I can't see FL deciding which players they can sign and which they can't as that would be a legal nightmare and far too subjective. Much easier to say no too everyone. Failing that, maybe they should only be allowed to sign players from the lower leagues - I guess that would work to fill their squad, but would anyone want to go to Pooey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Another good spin by Handy Andy. What he meant to say was 'He laughed at our offer and has f'cked off in pursuit of more money.'

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Rocha-keeps-options-open.6428434.jp

 

Interesting quote regarding further proof of the CHEATS cheating-

'Considering the level of salary he was on (last season), for somebody that age it's a massive change when you are offered something significantly less'.

He was signed after the WUP when they knew they were heading for admin and not paying St Johns ambulance & local charities. This is why they still deserve all they are going to get.

 

From that same article,

 

AA said:

 

Let's not forget the tax regime in the UK, which also comes into the equation.

 

I laughed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

good point that from Sid - Rocha was indeed one of the illegal signings down to the false info presented to the Prem, yet AA admits he was secured on HUGE wages?

Proof that they continued to spend big money that they knew they didn't have, even though all the creditors and charities were being shafted.

Insolvent trading, without a doubt - from AA's mouth.

 

And AA is now at the poker table with James and has told the best player in their squad and England's best player in the world cup that he has 24 hours to sign or feck off - AA will then go crawling back to the released Ashdown and beg him to return.

Can I play poker against AA please? For cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Ahh I see....is that typical of a CVA? Surely those already getting 100% have no place voting for those who are offered 20p/£1

No. It's Handy Andy bending the rules (a bit too far in this case).

 

In previous football admins, the football creditor's received the same proportion as all the other unsecured creditors (xxp/£) from the CVA, and voted alongside the unsecured creditors. The outstanding amount to take them up to payment in full (required by league rules) was then made by the new incoming owner from his own pocket. New money, in effect, not the club's money.

 

In this case Handy Andy has proposed to pay some of the unsecured creditors (the football creditors) 100% and the others 20% with the club's money i.e. from the parachute payments - money which belongs to the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
How can the FL sanction lifting the embargo to get 20 players? They get rid of all the carp players and replace them (if they can convince someone that they will be paid) with better players. Hardly playing fair. I can't see FL deciding which players they can sign and which they can't as that would be a legal nightmare and far too subjective. Much easier to say no too everyone. Failing that, maybe they should only be allowed to sign players from the lower leagues - I guess that would work to fill their squad, but would anyone want to go to Pooey?

They won't. Pompey know this. They've got as much chance of lifting the embargo by the back door as they did of getting their licence to play in Europe this season.

 

It's all hype, fodder for the News, so that when they get turned down they can cry "foul" and blame everybody else except themselves. It's a damage limitation excercise by AA.

 

Has Sonko joined them in San Diego yet? Have they signed a 'keeper yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted

Right....emailed to enquiries@football-league.co.uk

 

------

 

Good morning,

 

I write to you as a football fan since childhood. Football to me, has always been about fair play and honesty. The influx of Sky TV money to the Premier League, and now Championship has in some ways encouraged teams to 'think big' in order to compete.

 

With challenging to succeed comes an element of risk - overspending can cripple clubs who subsequently get relegated, and in the example of Portsmouth FC we have seen a decline in 'car crash' proportions.

 

It is yet to unfold as to whether certain individuals who drove that club into the ground will face prosecution (as they should). The fans of PFC will be suffering for many years to come as a result of, well, blatant cheating by those running the club. Fore example, signing players that they knew they could not afford.

 

Imagine my shock to see that the local newspaper, the Portsmouth News, indicating in an article that Portsmouth intend to flaunt your own rules in order to enhance their playing squad for the 2010-11 season. Here is the link to the particular story, which indicates their plan. Hardly fair to teams like AFC Bournemouth who played under a 'proper' embargo on transfers, is it?

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/The-number39s-not-up-for.6426689.jp

 

I would hope that as custodians of the 'beautiful game' that you do not let this happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted

To be fair to Poop, and I think that the FA will also agree, they have to get rid of the high earners otherwise they will sink even quicker than they already are. I will confess to not knowing the ins and outs of Poopey's squad, but I am not sure how many affordable but crâp players they have let go. Is it a lot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
Just one question……(appreciate this has probably been discussed and answered many times) but

 

Q: The CVA vote – were both secured and unsecured debtors both able to vote?

 

I understood that only those accepting the 20p/£1 would vote, but suggestions to the contrary?

 

Not sure if thats alloud to happen or not but I think its one of the things HMRC are questioning. Everyone got to vote based on what they thought they owed. There share may decrease after when they have to prove it for a second time though. Handy Andy thought he should reduce HMRC's bit for them before there vote so I guess they didnt need to prove anything after as AA took care of it. ;)

 

Based on football creditors and secured creditors votes I guess that wasa a large chunk of the 75% they needed to vote in favour. Didnt there ex manager (a football creditor entitled to 100% of his debt) vote against it also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
It's the start of the sob story to soften up the FL. May be a little bit late after publically explaining how they intend to cheat the system.

Cotterill was mad to take the job, but no tears for him. Regardless of what android told him or promised him, it wasnt difficult to work out what was going to happen.

Lampitt is the interesting one in this, does he have enough mates back at HQ to pull a few strings? and has the fact that they are paying up contracts, in order to sign other new players that their new manager wants despite the transfer embargo, rubber stamped by him?

 

Whatever happens with HMRC, in the coming months pompey will need the FL on side. On top of all this other stuff there is the small matter of storries court case, which the verdict will be during the current season. His charge directly involves pompey (Harrys and milans don't) so point deductions apply. Waving two fingers at the FL so early, won't do them any favours.

 

 

The decission to publicly state how they aim to get around the transfer embargo cant have been a very good one. The FL must be looking into there options or must at some point contact Poopy to warn them or something. If they let Poopy go ahead and ditch players then after tell them to swivel when they want to sign more they could be accused of sticking the boot in too. not that I mind but the Press would lap it up with sympathy for the bestest fans in the world :rolleyes:

 

I still dont see what Lampit is doing there. All the jobs you would expect him to be taking care of seem to be handled by AA. Didnt he come from the Prem high ranks? Not sure if that will help him that much in the FL as they have always seem to have been a law to themselves but he may as well make himself useful and do something.

 

They still seem to be a shambles where other clubs that have gone into admin seem to have at least steadied the ship whilst not being in a good state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
To be fair to Poop, and I think that the FA will also agree, they have to get rid of the high earners otherwise they will sink even quicker than they already are. I will confess to not knowing the ins and outs of Poopey's squad, but I am not sure how many affordable but crâp players they have let go. Is it a lot?

 

I dont think anyone would mind if they shipped out as many high earners as they could and also not renewed contracts that were up when they could bring in cheaper players from lower leagues or play there reserve/youth's in a bid to keep costs down until they are on more stable footing.

 

There plan however is to get rid of enough players from both the top end of the earners right down to the bottom end of the earners and it seems like they will be paying contracts up to get rid of a few more, all so they can go out shopping for players that will help them in there promotion push back to the prem.

 

If they get rid of a kid on 3k per week and sign a CCC experienced player on 5K per week its hardly cutting costs and it takes the P out of any embargo in place.

 

I dont thik there are any rules that cover this either way so everyone is kind of waiting for the FL to make a decission. Its got naff all to do with the FA though. The FL have been known to change the rules to suit as they did with us taking a points deduction for our parent company going into admin. The rules in place covered us but the FL didnt see it that way and made changes.

 

It seems the rules in place may cover Poopy but the FL could scupper there plans at any given time. Would be nice to hear what there stance on it is though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted

Perhaps PL put him in there to make sure he could handle any bad news that might emerge. Not sure what would have happened if Poop refused. Would be interesting to know how much he is earning and who is paying him. Speculation of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
No. It's Handy Andy bending the rules (a bit too far in this case).

 

In previous football admins, the football creditor's received the same proportion as all the other unsecured creditors (xxp/£) from the CVA, and voted alongside the unsecured creditors. The outstanding amount to take them up to payment in full (required by league rules) was then made by the new incoming owner from his own pocket. New money, in effect, not the club's money.

 

In this case Handy Andy has proposed to pay some of the unsecured creditors (the football creditors) 100% and the others 20% with the club's money i.e. from the parachute payments - money which belongs to the club.

 

Indeed, HMRC could argue that as the football creditors are guaranteed 100% payback then their debt is effectively a secured debt. In which case they shouldn't have been voting on a CVA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Torres

Torres

Posted
Posted

From F365's rumour round-up:

 

Notts County manager Craig Short is in talks with Portsmouth about signing Matt Ritchie on loan

 

Shipping players out on loan to allow them to replace them with better players on loan? If that's not cheating the system, I don't know what is. :uhoh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
I can only think Lampitt is there to cover up a lot of criminal and illegal activity which would bring shame upon the Premier League. That's the only reason I can see why he is there. It's no coincidence.

 

Lampitt is from the FA. I'd of thought they would want to unearth Premier league shame as they aer at loggerheads as to who is the right body to run football?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
From F365's rumour round-up:

 

Notts County manager Craig Short is in talks with Portsmouth about signing Matt Ritchie on loan

 

Shipping players out on loan to allow them to replace them with better players on loan? If that's not cheating the system, I don't know what is. :uhoh:

why didn't bournemouth take advantage of this loop hole?

 

Has Sonko actually signed on loan or is this subject to the embargo being lifted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-hope-for-early-court.6428362.jp?

 

Looks like the meeting that was scheduled with their Pinnacle type group yesterday never happened... well that's a huge surprise.

 

Their ITKs wil be taking some flak I expect...

 

Andrew Andronikou said an application was made yesterday at the High Court for the appeal to be heard quickly.

 

Mr Andronikou said: 'We have made an application and we are hoping the hearing date is going to be in the first few days of August. We are pretty confident.'

Yep, that's right....the courts will have plenty of spare slots during the peak of the holiday season....sigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looks like Cotterill has woken up and started smelling the coffee.....what took him so long?

 

 

 

20 July 2010

 

 

Steve Cotterill has accused Pompey's American adventure of hampering his chances of assembling a Championship squad.

 

The Blues are currently halfway through a two-week tour of America and Canada.

 

They play the third of four friendlies against Edmonton tomorrow night before wrapping it up in Washington on July 24 and returning home two days later.

 

In the meantime, Pompey are struggling to add to their under-strength squad and are still waiting to learn whether they will receive special dispensation from the Football League to recruit.

 

Amid it all, Cotterill has seen his already-threadbare squad hit by injuries to the likes of Tommy Smith, Joel Ward and Marc Wilson.

 

The situation has frustrated the Blues boss, with just 18 days to go before the start of the season.

 

And he has admitted he would rather be at home to put in place preparations than across the Atlantic.

 

He said: 'The squad is very small and sometimes you could do with these games being back in England so people around the football club can see how light you are.

 

'It will be fantastic at the moment to nail down a starting XI and work on a few things, but I don't think we've got a lot of chance of that.

 

'The situation as it stands at the moment is I don't quite know where we'll be in a couple of weeks.

 

'I could do with being back home, really. I could do without being out here so I can ask a few questions and get to the bottom of a few things.

 

'It's very difficult for me at the moment. I'm really out of the loop.

 

Read more at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Frustration-for-Cotterill.6428454.jp

 

Talk about gone to hell in a handcart, it just continues to get worse every day!! We are so doomed. Roll on the appeal and at least we'll know one way or the other where we are going. Perhaps in the meantime the Today's Vote in the News could be "Who most likes their own publicity? Rob Lloyd, Andrew Andronikou or The HMRC?"
Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Yep, that's right....the courts will have plenty of spare slots during the peak of the holiday season....sigh

 

A few days ago he was very confident that it would be heard in July and that they would win. Now he's fairly confident that it will be in the first few days of August.

 

I wonder why he bothers really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

'I could do without being out here so I can ask a few questions and get to the bottom of a few things.' end quote

Surely Cotterill is not alluding to the case that he may have been misled. First Avram and now him Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

For anoraks (like me) it's CPR Part 39.

 

Trinity Term at the High Court ends on July 31st (30th this year) & Michaelmas starts on 1st October.

 

In the intervening 2 months (vacation), there will be one Judge, from each division, sitting to hear urgent cases. Either Party can apply to the Court to have their case heard as urgent during vacation. There will be an awful lot of urgent applications for one judge to handle, given that the Judge also requires time to read all of the supporting documents in advance.

 

A case could be made by Pompey that their case is urgent, given that delay could be preventing them from exiting administration and taking part in the early stages of the league competition without the inconvenience of being in administration. The Court might, however, take the view that the administrator, who has been in office since February, could reasonably have foreseen a challenge to his proposed CVA as permitted under the law, and have set his timetable accordingly, and that he is, therefore, the architect of his own inconvenience.

 

I still don't believe that AA really wants this to be heard urgently. It's hard to see an acceptable outcome for him if he loses. IF an application has been made, I expect he's been advised that it will fail and the case will be held over until next term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
'I could do without being out here so I can ask a few questions and get to the bottom of a few things.' end quote

Surely Cotterill is not alluding to the case that he may have been misled. First Avram and now him Lol

 

Surely that can't be the case, can it? How could anyone be that naive??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
IF an application has been made, I expect he's been advised that it will fail and the case will be held over until next term.

 

I don't suppose all cases submitted to the court are listed in the public domain somewhere are they....? A bit like planning permission submissions?

 

Yours in hope....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted

Some "interesting" reporting by the BBC:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm

 

Headline: Court agrees to bring forward HMRC Portsmouth appeal

Number of references which suggest the court has agreed to bring forward the appeal: none

 

Relevant quote from Lampitt: "I'm yet to hear the about the date for that hearing, but we should know within the next 24 hours."

 

Open and closed case then :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andysstuff

andysstuff

Posted
Posted
Some "interesting" reporting by the BBC:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm

 

Headline: Court agrees to bring forward HMRC Portsmouth appeal

Number of references which suggest the court has agreed to bring forward the appeal: none

 

Relevant quote from Lampitt: "I'm yet to hear the about the date for that hearing, but we should know within the next 24 hours."

 

Open and closed case then :rolleyes:

 

To be fair, the first paragraph states '. court ruled to speed up HM's Revenue and Customs' appeal.'

 

Mind you, can't see it's in AA's interest to speed things along - he's on a hiding to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted (edited)
Some "interesting" reporting by the BBC:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm

 

Headline: Court agrees to bring forward HMRC Portsmouth appeal

Number of references which suggest the court has agreed to bring forward the appeal: none

 

Relevant quote from Lampitt: "I'm yet to hear the about the date for that hearing, but we should know within the next 24 hours."

 

Open and closed case then :rolleyes:

 

Their reporting of the whole affair has been pretty shoddy IMO. Articles are often littered with inaccuracies.

 

That article implies that HMRC only has one ground of appeal, namely the voting rights it was given, when we all know it has other grounds as well.

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Their reporting of the whole affair has been pretty shoddy IMO. Articles are often littered with inacuracies.

 

That article implies that HMRC only has one ground of appeal, namely the voting rights it was given, when we all know it has other grounds as well.

 

The BBC should take a leaf out of the Echo reporters jotting pad and read this thread thoroughly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Their reporting of the whole affair has been pretty shoddy IMO. Articles are often littered with inacuracies.

 

That article implies that HMRC only has one ground of appeal, namely the voting rights it was given, when we all know it has other grounds as well.

I think that's quite an important point. The Insolvency Act has 2 grounds for appealing the CVA vote. HMRC, according to it's statement at the time, has appealed on 3 grounds, the 3rd being the conduct of the Chairman. If that was just his conduct at the meeting, then that would be dealt with in the second ground.

 

So I reckon they're after his removal. They will certainly get more from a Griffinesque CVA than from AA. And AA will pull the plug and liquidate if at any time Chainrai decides that's best for him.

 

 

And in answer to trousers, yes. It is publicly published, but only the (working) day before. The Parties will know before, so it might be reported in the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

I have been through a few court cases and contacted the local press telling them there was a juicey story breaking and they need to be in court at 9:30. They allways turn up at 10:30, miss the action then can't report it because my word is only "hearsay" or even worse two different departments from the BBC ring me 5 hours later on three different phone numbers at the same time! (all working in the same building)

 

Anny way Beeb, get BBC matt to all the meetings, court cases , on time fueled with coffee and twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

Been Soooo out the loop down here in rural southern Poland, only really have time to sneak a quick over view.

 

Has anyone mentioned in this entire HMRC appeal thingy the reference to the actual minutes of the CVA meeting?

 

IIRC at that meeting HMRC's rep asked one clear and specific question of AA - "please explain the way that you got to xxxxx figure" or words to that effect.

 

AA then refused to answer the question.

 

You have to love that one, AA HIMSELF caused the appeal simply because HMRC wanted an answer to a simple qquestion. AA didn't give it so HMMRC appeal to court to get the answer.

 

That shows how useless AA is - that act alone was guaranteed to delay the ability of the new manager (now SC) to sign players.

 

HMRC may or may not have grounds to win a court case about the whole Football creditors ruling, BUT AA handed them a "Appeal for free and no danger of losing" card

 

Priceless. Once they get the answer to the question AA didn't answer, THEN they can appeal against THAT decision as well.

 

 

This could last until Christmas

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Been Soooo out the loop down here in rural southern Poland, only really have time to sneak a quick over view.

 

Has anyone mentioned in this entire HMRC appeal thingy the reference to the actual minutes of the CVA meeting?

 

IIRC at that meeting HMRC's rep asked one clear and specific question of AA - "please explain the way that you got to xxxxx figure" or words to that effect.

 

AA then refused to answer the question.

 

You have to love that one, AA HIMSELF caused the appeal simply because HMRC wanted an answer to a simple qquestion. AA didn't give it so HMMRC appeal to court to get the answer.

 

That shows how useless AA is - that act alone was guaranteed to delay the ability of the new manager (now SC) to sign players.

 

HMRC may or may not have grounds to win a court case about the whole Football creditors ruling, BUT AA handed them a "Appeal for free and no danger of losing" card

 

Priceless. Once they get the answer to the question AA didn't answer, THEN they can appeal against THAT decision as well.

 

 

This could last until Christmas

 

Thereby placing one great big hex on the Jan. transfer window for the FCSBs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
These two stories are a mile apart

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Fully-fit-squad-is-just.6427887.jp

 

http://www.dcunited.com/press-release/2010/07/portsmouth-announces-roster-ahead-of-dc-united-friendly

 

12 hours... no posts .... I thought Rob LLoyd wa going to buy the shower yesterday ....

 

http://www.dcunited.com/press-release/2010/07/portsmouth-announces-roster-ahead-of-dc-united-friendly

 

:lol: Wow, they used a lot of this:

 

3115860663_48ee22fd64.jpg?v=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted

Is it possible HMRC are trying to play the ultimate long game?

 

ie. try and drag this all the way up to the start of the 2011/12 season, meaning Pompey can't start that season (because you can't start 2 consecutive seasons in admin) and get liquidated soon afterwards as they'd have zero income?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...